1: \documentclass[twoside]{article}
2: \usepackage{fleqn,espcrc2}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{here}
5: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
6: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
7: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
8: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
9: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
10: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
11: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
12: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}
13: \def\eq{\end{quote}}
14: \def\ve{\vert}
15: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
16: \def\ga{\left(}
17: \def\dr{\right)}
18: \def\aga{\left\{}
19: \def\adr{\right\}}
20: \def\lb{\lbrack}
21: \def\rb{\rbrack}
22: \def\rar{\rightarrow}
23: \def\lrar{\Longrightarrow}
24: \def\llar{\Longleftarrow}
25: \def\nnb{\nonumber}
26: \def\la{\langle}
27: \def\ra{\rangle}
28: \def\nin{\noindent}
29: \def\ba{\begin{array}}
30: \def\ea{\end{array}}
31: \def\bm{\overline{m}}
32: \def\ind{\indexentry}
33: \def\c{\clubsuit}
34: \def\s{\spadesuit}
35: \def\b{$\bullet$}
36: \def\als{\alpha_s}
37: \def\as{\ga\frac{\bar{\alpha_s}}{\pi}\dr}
38: \def\asr{\ga\frac{{\alpha_s}}{\pi}\dr}
39: \def\gg2{ \la\alpha_s G^2 \ra}
40: \def\gg3{g^3f_{abc}\la G^aG^bG^c \ra}
41: \def\ggg4{\la\als^2G^4\ra}
42: \def\lnu{\log{-\frac{q^2}{\nu^2}}}
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: \title{\bf{\boldmath
45: {\huge Scalar mesons and the muon anomaly} }}
46: \author{
47: Stephan Narison\address{ Laboratoire
48: de Physique Math\'ematique et Th\'eorique, Universit\'e
49: de Montpellier II, Case 070, Place Eug\`ene
50: Bataillon, 34095 - Montpellier Cedex 05,
51: France.\\ E-mail:
52: qcd@lpm.univ-montp2.fr} }
53: \begin{document}
54: \textwidth 17cm
55: \textheight 24.5cm
56: \topmargin -2.5cm
57: \oddsidemargin -.6cm
58: \evensidemargin -0.5cm
59: \pagestyle{empty}
60: \pagestyle{plain}
61: %\vspace*{2cm}
62: \begin{abstract}
63: \noindent
64: We evaluate systematically some new contributions of the QCD scalar
65: mesons, including radiative decay-productions, not considered with a
66: better attention
67: until now in the evaluation of the hadronic contributions to the muon
68: anomaly. The sum of the scalar contributions to be added to the
69: existing Standard Model predictions
70: $a_\mu^{SM}$ are estimated in units $10^{-10}$ to be
71: $ a^{S}_\mu= 1.0(0.6) ~\big{[}{\rm TH~based}\big{]}$ and $13(11) ~\big{[}{\rm
72: PDG~based}\big{]}$, where the errors are dominated by the ones
73: from the experimental widths of these scalar mesons. PDG based results
74: suggest that the value of $a_\mu^{SM}$
75: and its errors might have been underestimated in previous works. The
76: inclusion of these
77: new effects leads to a perfect agreement ($\leq 1.1\sigma$) of the measured
78: value
79: $a^{exp}_\mu$ and
80: $a_\mu^{SM}$ from
81: $\tau$-decay and implies a $(1.5\sim 3.3)~\sigma$ discrepancy between
82: $a^{exp}_\mu$ and $a_\mu^{SM}$ from $e^+e^-\rar$ hadrons data.
83: More refined unbiased estimates of $a_\mu^{SM}$ require improved
84: measurements of the scalar meson masses and widths. The impact of our
85: results to
86: $a_\mu^{SM}$ is summarized in the conclusions.
87: \end{abstract}
88: %\begin{flushright} NCS
89: %\end{flushright}
90: \maketitle
91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
92: \section{INTRODUCTION}
93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
94: \nin
95: Improved accurate experimental measurement \cite{BNL} and recent
96: theoretical estimates of the muon
97: anomaly \cite{DAVIER,KAORU,SN,YND} are now available. The
98: theoretical accuracy in \cite{DAVIER,KAORU}~\footnote{Though agreeing
99: in the total sum, the results from
100: these two estimates differ in each energy region.} is mainly
101: attributed to the use of the new
102: CMD-2
103: \cite{CMD2} around the
104: $\rho$ mass and on BES data \cite{BEPC} around the $J/\Psi$ region.
105: The impact of the former data on the determination of
106: the muon anomaly is intuitively more important due to the low-energy
107: dominance of the anomaly kernel function
108: \cite{RAF,LAUT}. However, what is more intriguing within this
109: increasing precision is the discrepancy
110: between the results from
111: $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$-decay data \cite{DAVIER,KAORU}, which was not the
112: case in the previous determinations
113: using preliminary data
114: \cite{SN,YND}. In this short note, we study some other sources of
115: contributions, not considered with
116: a better attention until now, from the scalar mesons. These scalar
117: ($\bar qq$, gluonia,...) are
118: conceptually fundamental consequences of QCD. Though their existence
119: is not precisely confirmed, there are increasing
120: evidences of their findings in different $e^+e^-$ and hadronic
121: experiments \cite{KYOTO}.
122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
123: \section{ISOSCALAR SCALAR MESONS}
124: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
125: \nin
126: The interest in these $I=0$ scalar mesons are that they cannot be
127: obtained from usual ChPT approaches.
128: They are related to the QCD scale anomaly:
129: \beq\label{eq:anomaly}
130: \theta_\mu^\mu=\frac{1}{4}\beta(\alpha_s) G^2+\sum_i [ 1+\gamma_m(\alpha_s)]
131: m_i\bar\psi_i\psi_i~,
132: \eeq
133: where $G^a_{\mu\nu}$ is the gluon field strengths, $\psi_i$ is the
134: quark field; $\beta(\alpha_s)$ and
135: $\gamma_m(\alpha_s)$ are respectively the QCD $\beta$-function and
136: quark mass-anomalous dimension.
137: In this case, arguments based on $SU(2)$ symmetry or its violation
138: used to estimate some
139: processes like e.g. radiative processes cannot be applied \cite{U1}.
140: Using QCD spectral sum rules (QSSR)
141: \cite{SVZ,SNB} and low-energy theorems (LET) for estimating the mass
142: and its width, it has been shown in
143: \cite{VENEZIA,SNG} that the wide
144: $\sigma(0.60)$ meson is the best candidate meson (gluonium)
145: associated to the previous interpolating current (see also
146: \cite{OCHS}). Its mass
147: is due to the gluon component and its large width into $\pi\pi$ is
148: due to a large violation of the OZI rule \footnote{This feature also
149: implies that lattice
150: calculations of the gluonium mass in pure Yang-Mills or quenched
151: approximation are bad approximations and might miss
152: this "unusual" glueball.} (analogue
153: of the
154: $\eta'$-meson of the $U(1)_A$ sector \cite{WITTEN}). The oberved
155: $\sigma(0.60)$ and $f_0(0.98)$
156: can be explained by a ``maximal quarkonium-gluonium mixing scheme"
157: \cite{VENEZIA,SNG}. In the following, we study the $\sigma$ and other
158: scalar mesons
159: contributions to the muon anomaly.
160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
161: \section{THE $\bf e^+e^-\rar ~S\gamma$ PROCESSES}
162: \nin
163: Using analytic properties of the photon propagator, the general
164: contribution to the muon anomaly from the process:
165: \beq
166: e^+e^-\rar \gamma^*\rar hadrons
167: \eeq
168: can be written in a closed form as \cite{RAF}:
169: \bea
170: a_l^{had}(l.o)=\frac{1}{4\pi^3}\int_{4m^2_\pi}^\infty dt~K_l(t)~\sigma_H(t)~,
171: \eea
172: where:\\
173: \b~$K_l(t\geq 0)$ is the QED kernel function \cite{LAUT}:
174: \bea\label{kernel}
175: K_l(t)&=&\int_0^1 dx\frac{x^2(1-x)}{x^2+\ga{t}/{m_l^2}\dr(1-x)}~,
176: \eea
177: with the analytic form:
178: \bea
179: K_l(t\geq 4m_l^2)&=&
180: z_l^2\ga 1-\frac{z_l^2}{2}\dr+
181: \ga
182: 1+z_l\dr^2\times\nnb\\
183: &&\ga 1+
184: \frac{1}{z_l^2}\dr\Big{[}\log(1+z_l)-z_l\nnb\\
185: &&+\frac{z_l^2}{2}\Big{]}
186: +\ga\frac{1+z_l}{1-z_l}\dr z_l^2\log{z_l},
187: \eea
188: with:
189: \beq
190: y_l=\frac{t}{4m^2_l},~~z_l=\frac{(1-v_l)}{(1+v_l)}~~{\rm and
191: }~~v_l=\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_l^2}{t}}.
192: \eeq
193: $K_l(t)$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $t$. For large $t$,
194: it behaves as:
195: \beq
196: K_l(t> m^2_l)\simeq \frac{m^2_l}{3t}~,
197: \eeq
198: which will be an useful approximation for the analysis in the large $t$ regime.
199: Such properties then emphasize the importance of the
200: low-energy contribution to $a_l^{had}(l.o)~(l\equiv e,~\mu)$, where
201: the QCD analytic calculations cannot
202: be applied.\\
203: \b~$\sigma_H(t)\equiv\sigma(e^+e^-\rar{\rm
204: hadrons})$ is the $e^+e^-\rar $ hadrons total cross-section which can be
205: related to the hadronic two-point spectral function Im$\Pi(t)_{em}$ through the
206: optical theorem:
207: \beq
208: R_{e^+e^-}\equiv\frac{\sigma(e^+e^-\rar{\rm
209: hadrons})}{\sigma(e^+e^-\rar\mu^+\mu^-)}=12\pi{\rm Im}\Pi(t)_{em}~,
210: \eeq
211: where:
212: \beq
213: \sigma(e^+e^-\rar\mu^+\mu^-)=\frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{3t}.
214: \eeq
215: Here,
216: \bea\label{twopoint}
217: \Pi^{\mu\nu}_{em} &\equiv& i \int d^4x ~e^{iqx} \
218: \la 0\vert {\cal T}
219: {J^\mu_{em}(x)}
220: \ga {J^\nu_{em}(x)}\dr^\dagger \vert 0 \ra \nnb\\
221: &=&-\ga g^{\mu\nu}q^2-q^\mu q^\nu\dr\Pi_{em}(q^2)
222: \eea
223: is the correlator built from the local electromagnetic current:
224: \beq
225: J^\mu_{em}(x)=\frac{2}{3}\bar u\gamma^\mu u-
226: \frac{1}{3}\bar d\gamma^\mu d-\frac{1}{3}\bar s\gamma^\mu s+...
227: \eeq
228: Using Vector Meson Dominance Model (VDM) in a Narrow Width
229: Approximation (NWA), one obtains
230: \cite{SNTHESIS}:
231: \beq
232: a_\mu^{VDM}(l.o)\simeq {3\over\pi}K\ga{M^2_V\over
233: m^2_l}\dr{\Gamma_{V\rar e^+e^-}\over M_V}{\Gamma_{V\rar \gamma X}\over
234: \Gamma_{V\rar all}}~.
235: \eeq
236: The $V\rar \gamma X$ ($X\equiv \sigma, f_0$) coupling has been
237: estimated from the $X\gamma\gamma$ one given in
238: \cite{VENEZIA,SNG} and in the PDG data \cite{PDG} and using the VDM relation:
239: \beq
240: g_{X\gamma V}\simeq {\sqrt{2}\gamma_V\over e} g_{X\gamma\gamma}~,
241: \eeq
242: where $e$ is the electric charge and we use the normalization
243: $\gamma_\rho\simeq 2.51\pm 0.02$. For the scalar
244: mesons, we use:
245: \bea
246: M_\sigma&\simeq& (0.6\sim 0.8)~{\rm GeV}~,\nnb\\
247: \Gamma_{\sigma\rar\gamma\gamma}&\simeq& (0.2\sim 0.3)~{\rm
248: keV~ QSSR}~\cite{VENEZIA,SNG}\nnb\\
249: &\simeq&(3.8\pm 1.5)~{\rm
250: keV~~PDG}~\cite{PDG,MENES}~,\nnb\\
251: \Gamma_{f_0(1.4)\rar\gamma\gamma}&\simeq&
252: (0.7\sim 5.)~{\rm keV}~,
253: \eea
254: The ones of the
255: other
256: $\omega$ and
257: $\phi$ radiative widths come from PDG
258: \cite{PDG}. We also use in MeV units
259: \cite{PDG}:
260: \bea
261: \Gamma_{\omega(1.42)\rar e^+e^-}&\simeq& 0.08\times
262: 10^{-3},~\Gamma_{tot}\simeq 174(59)\nnb\\
263: \Gamma_{\rho(1.45)\rar e^+e^-}&\simeq &0.44\times
264: 10^{-3},~\Gamma_{tot}\simeq 310(60)\nnb\\
265: \Gamma_{\phi(1.68)\rar e^+e^-}&\simeq& 0.48\times
266: 10^{-3},~\Gamma_{tot}\simeq 150(50)~,\nnb\\
267: \eea
268: We deduce the
269: results in Table \ref{tab:table1},
270: where the first set of values corresponds to
271: $\Gamma_{\sigma\rar\gamma\gamma}$ from QSSR
272: and the second set of values to the $\sigma$ width from PDG.
273: \begin{table}[hbt]
274:
275: %[hbt]
276: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.7pc}
277: %\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
278: %\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
279: %\begin{center}
280: \caption{$e^+e^-\rar~ $scalar+$\gamma$ contributions to $a_\mu^{had}$ $^{*)}$.
281: }
282: \label{tab:table1}
283: %\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lcl}
284: \begin{tabular}{llll}
285: \hline
286: &\\
287: {\bf Processes}&{$\bf a_\mu^{had}\times 10^{10}$}&\\ &&\\
288: \hline
289: &&\\
290: & QSSR&PDG\\
291: &&\\
292: $\rho\rar\sigma\gamma$&$\sim 0.$&$\sim 0.05$ \\
293: $\omega\rar\sigma\gamma$&$\sim 0.$&$\sim 0.07$& \\
294: $\phi\rar\sigma\gamma$&$0.03\sim 0.15$&$1.\sim 10.$& \\
295: $\phi\rar f_0(.98)\gamma$&PDG&$0.01\pm 0.00$& \\
296: $\phi\rar a_0(.98)\gamma$&PDG&$0.03\pm 0.01$& \\
297: \\
298: $\rho(1.45)\rar\sigma\gamma$&$0.01\sim 0.02$&$0.06\sim 0.42$& \\
299: $\omega(1.42)\rar\sigma\gamma$&$0.10\sim 0.17$ &$0.1\sim 0.7$\\
300: $\phi(1.68)\rar\sigma\gamma$&$0.14\sim 0.20$&$0.17\sim 1.17$&\\
301: $\phi(1.68)\rar f_0(1.4)\gamma$&$-$&$-$\\
302:
303: \\
304: Total &$0.45\pm 0.13$&$7.3\pm 5.6$\\
305: &&\\
306: \hline
307: \end{tabular}
308: {\footnotesize
309: \begin{quote}
310: $^{*)}$\,For completeness, we also include the contribution of the
311: isovector $a_0(980)$.
312: \noindent
313: \end{quote}}
314: \end{table}
315: \nin
316: It is clear from Table \ref{tab:table1} that the results are very
317: sensitive to the value of the $\sigma$ mass and $\gamma\gamma$ width.
318: Though, in the ``maximal quark-gluonium mixing scheme" of the
319: $\sigma$ meson, one favours a small $\gamma\gamma$ width
320: \cite{VENEZIA,SNG}, the PDG
321: data \cite{PDG,MENES} and some other QCD models still allow higher
322: values. For a conservative and unbiased estimate, we translate the
323: total sum in Table
324: \ref{tab:table1} into:
325: \bea
326: a_\mu^{S\gamma}\times 10^{10}&=&0.45(0.13)~~~ {\rm QSSR}\nnb\\
327: &=& 7.30(5.60)~~~{\rm PDG}~.
328: \eea
329: In order to include this result into the one in \cite{DAVIER}, and
330: for avoiding an eventual double counting, we ``de-rescale" their
331: result on the top of the
332: $\omega$ by 0.888 and on the $\phi$ by the factor 0.984 used there
333: for taking into account the missing modes. In this way, we obtain the
334: corresponding ``pure" hadronic decay:
335: \beq
336: a_\mu(\omega+\phi\rar 3\pi+ K\bar K)= 67.04(1.50)\times 10^{-10}~,
337: \eeq
338: Using the $\omega$ and $\phi$ into $\eta\gamma$ and $\pi^0\gamma$
339: radiative decay widths from \cite{PDG}, we deduce:
340: \beq
341: a_\mu(\omega+\phi\rar \eta\gamma+\pi^0\gamma)=4.36(0.16)\times 10^{-10}~.
342: \eeq
343: Taking into account these different effects, we conclude from this
344: analysis that the inclusion of these new radiative decays
345: increases the results in \cite{DAVIER} by:
346: \bea\label{eq:axg}
347: \Delta a_\mu^{X\gamma}\times 10^{10}&=&0.10(0.13)~~~ {\rm QSSR}\nnb\\
348: &=& 6.95(5.60)~~~{\rm PDG}~.
349: \eea
350: PDG data for the widths of the $\sigma$ meson may indicate that the
351: scaling factors used
352: in
353: \cite{DAVIER} are not sufficient for taking into account the
354: different missing modes
355: of the
356: $\omega$ and $\phi$ mesons.
357: Adding our result in Eq. (\ref{eq:axg}), to
358: the recent estimate of $a_\mu^{had}(l.o)$ in
359: \cite{DAVIER,KAORU,SN,YND}, the lowest order hadronic contributions
360: to $a_\mu$ becomes~\footnote{For the $\tau$-decay data,
361: we use the average of the results (in units of 10$^{-10}$)
362: $709.0(5.9)$ \cite{DAVIER} and
363: $703.6(7.6)$ \cite{SN}. For the
364: $e^+e^-$ data, we use the average of the most recent estimates
365: 684.0(6.5) \cite{DAVIER} and 683.1(6.2) \cite{KAORU}, which are
366: however lower by about $1.4\sigma$ than the previous estimates in
367: \cite{SN,YND} based on preliminary data.} in units of $ 10^{-10}$:
368: \bea\label{eq:had}
369: a_\mu^{had}(l.o)&=&
370: 706.4(6.8)(0.1)~\big{[}\tau-\rm QSSR\big{]}~,\nnb\\
371: &=&713.3(6.8)(5.6)~\big{[}\tau-\rm PDG\big{]}~,\nnb\\ &=&
372: 683.7(6.4)(0.1)~\big{[}e^+e^--\rm QSSR\big{]}~,\nnb\\
373: &=& 690.6(6.4)(5.6)~\big{[}e^+e^--\rm PDG\big{]}~,
374: \eea
375: where the first error is the ones from \cite{DAVIER,KAORU,SN}, and
376: the second one comes from the present analysis.
377: Our
378: results, especially the one based on PDG data, suggest that the estimate of
379: $a_\mu^{had}(l.o)$ and its errors might have been underestimated in
380: the previous
381: determinations.
382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
383: %\subsection*{$e^+e^-\rar $ S$\rar$ hadrons processes}
384: \section{NEW CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE SCALAR MESON TO $a_\mu$}
385: \nin
386: Here, we study the effect of scalar mesons via a Higgs-like triangle
387: diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scalar}. This new hadronic
388: contribution to $a_\mu^{had}$
389: cannot be estimated using the usual electromagnetic spectral function
390: associated to one virtual photon.
391: \begin{figure}[hbt]
392: \begin{center}
393: \includegraphics[width=3cm]{scalar.eps}
394: \caption{Scalar meson contribution to $a_l$.}
395: \label{fig:scalar}
396: \end{center}
397: \end{figure}
398: \nin
399: The evaluation
400: of this diagram gives the contribution (see e.g. \cite{CALMET}):
401: \beq
402: a_\mu^{Sll}={|g_F|^2\over 16\pi^2}2\int_0^1 dx{x^2(2-x)\over x^2+\ga
403: M^2_S/ m^2_\mu\dr(1-x)}~,
404: \eeq
405: where $M_S$ is the scalar mass and $g_F$ is the ``effective"
406: $Sl^+l^-$ coupling.
407: However, the coupling of these scalar mesons to
408: $e^+e^-$ is not known, and in the case of the isoscalar, the na\"\i
409: ve argument based on chiral symmetry (Higgs-type
410: coupling) may not be applied due to the presence of gluon fields in the
411: $U(1)_V$ dilaton current given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:anomaly}). {Note that
412: these scalar mesons might also be
413: produced in the $s$-channel in $e^+e^-$ experiments, most probably
414: via two-photon exchange, which should
415: differ from the usual spectral function of a one photon exchange used
416: to estimate
417: $a_\mu^{had}(l.o)$, and therefore prevent from some eventual double
418: counting of the $e^+e^-\rar$ hadrons data. However, we are not also
419: aware of existing
420: analyses of the angular distribution which can differentiate a
421: scalar from a vector meson in the low-energy
422: $e^+e^-$ region concerned here
423: \cite{RENARD}, while present LEP limits on electroweak scalar
424: particles (sleptons, squarks) given in
425: \cite{SUZY} may not be applied here.}.
426: \begin{table}[hbt]
427: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.9pc}
428: %\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
429: %\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
430: %\begin{center}
431: \caption{Contribution of Fig. \ref{fig:scalar} to $a_\mu$ using the
432: upper bound on the leptonic widths compiled by PDG~\cite{PDG}.}
433: \label{tab:table2}
434: %\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}lll}
435: \begin{tabular}{lll}
436: \hline
437: &\\
438: {\bf }&{$\bf a_\mu\times 10^{10}$}&$\bf \Gamma_{S\rar e^+e^-}$ \bf [eV]\\
439: &&\\
440: \hline
441: &&\\
442: $\sigma(.60)$&$0.\sim 8.9$&$\leq 20~^{*)}$ \\
443: $f_0(.98)$&$0.\sim 1.1$&$\leq 8.4$ \\
444: $a_0(.98)$&$0.\sim 0.2$&$\leq 1.5$\\
445: $f_0(1.37)$&$0\sim 1.1$&$\leq 20$\\
446: &&\\
447: Total&$0.\sim 11.4$&\\
448:
449: &&\\
450: \hline
451: \end{tabular}
452: {\footnotesize
453: \begin{quote}
454: $^{*)}$\,Due to the non-available experimental leptonic width of the $\sigma$
455: and the unclear separation between the $\sigma$ and the $f_0(1.37)$, one can
456: safely assume that the bounds for the
457: $\sigma$ and for the $f_0(1.37)$ are about the same.
458: \noindent
459: \end{quote}}
460: \end{table}
461: \nin
462: If one estimates this coupling from the
463: experimental bound on
464: the $S\rar e^+e^-$ width
465: \cite{PDG} \footnote{Note that the difference
466: $a_e^{exp}-a_e^{SM}=(34.9\pm 28.4)\times 10^{-12}$ from
467: the electron anomaly \cite{MARCIANO} leads to a weaker upper bound.},
468: and use the positivity of the contribution, one gets the
469: result in Table
470: \ref{tab:table2}, where an universal coupling to $l^+l^-$ ($l\equiv
471: e,\mu$) has been assumed~\footnote{The bound is weaker for
472: a Higgs-type coupling.}. In order to see the strength of this
473: experimental bound, one may assume that the coupling of the scalar to
474: $l^+l^-$ is dominated by the
475: one through two photons. Therefore, an {\it alternative rough
476: estimate} of this effect can be obtained by relating it to
477: the light-by-light (LL) scattering diagram contribution \cite{LL},
478: where we obtain \footnote{We use the total LL contribution in order
479: to take into
480: account other mesons contributions}:
481: \beq\label{eq:aee}
482: a_\mu^{Sll}({LL})\approx e^2a_\mu^{LL}\approx (0.1\sim 1.0)\times 10^{-10}~,
483: \eeq
484: where we have considered the uncertainties to be about one order of
485: magnitude in
486: order to have a conservative estimate. This result indicates that the present
487: experimental upper bound in Table~\ref{tab:table2} might be very weak,
488: and needs to be improved. We translate the results given in Eqs. (\ref{eq:aee})
489: and Table~\ref{tab:table2} into (in units of $10^-10$):
490: \bea\label{eq:ae+e-}
491: a_\mu^{Sll}&=& 0.55(0.45)~{\rm TH}\nnb\\
492: &=&5.7(5.7)~{\rm PDG}.
493: \eea
494: Adding the results in Eqs. (\ref{eq:axg}) and (\ref{eq:ae+e-}), one
495: finally deduces the sum of the additionnal contributions due to
496: scalar mesons in units of $10^{-10}$:
497: \bea\label{eq:scalar}
498: a^{S}_\mu&=& 1.0(0.6)~{\rm TH}\nnb\\
499: &=&13(11)~{\rm PDG}~,
500: \eea
501: to be added to the SM predictions $a_\mu^{SM}$. One should notice that the
502: present theoretical estimate based on QCD spectral sum rules (QSSR) differs by
503: about an order magnitude to the one based on the PDG data for the $\sigma
504: \gamma\gamma$ and scalar meson leptonic widths. The QSSR estimate of the
505: $\sigma\gamma\gamma$ width is based on the picture where the observed $\sigma$
506: meson emerges from a maximal mixing between a gluonium and $\bar qq$ states,
507: which then implies a much smaller $\gamma\gamma$ width. On the other, the
508: theoretical estimate of the leptonic width is based on an intermediate
509: $\gamma\gamma$ coupling of the scalar meson to the lepton pair explaining again
510: the relative suppression of a such width.
511: A progress in improving the accuracy of the scalar meson contributions needs
512: solely improved measurements of the scalar mesons $\gamma\gamma$ and leptonic
513: widths. In addition, such a program is also necessary to clarify the exact
514: nature of the scalar mesons which, at present, is, experimentally,
515: poorly known.
516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
517: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
518: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
519: \nin
520: The inclusion of the scalar meson contribution in Eq.~(\ref{eq:axg})
521: modifies the recent estimate of
522: $a_\mu^{had}(l.o)$ from \cite{DAVIER,KAORU,SN} into the one in
523: Eq.~(\ref{eq:had}), while the direct exchange of the scalar
524: meson shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scalar} gives the new contribution in
525: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ae+e-}). The total sum of the scalar contributions
526: is given in Eq. (\ref{eq:scalar}).
527: Adding our result in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:had}) and (\ref{eq:ae+e-}), we
528: deduce in units of $10^{-10}$:
529: \bea
530: a_\mu^{had}&\equiv& a_\mu^{had}(l.o)+a_\mu^{Sll}\nnb\\
531: &=& 707.4(6.8)(0.6)~\big{[}\tau-{\rm TH}\big{]}~,\nnb\\
532: &=& 719.4(6.8)(11)~\big{[}\tau-{\rm PDG}\big{]}~,\nnb\\
533: &=& 684.6(6.4)(0.6)~\big{[}e^+e^--{\rm TH}\big{]}~,\nnb\\
534: &=& 696.6(6.4)(11)~\big{[}e^+e^--{\rm PDG}\big{]}~,
535: \eea
536: where the first error is the ones from \cite{DAVIER,KAORU,SN}, and
537: the second one comes from the present analysis. Our
538: results (especially the one using PDG data) suggest that the value
539: and errors of
540: the hadronic contributions to $a_\mu^{SM}$ might have been underestimated in
541: the previous
542: determinations. From the above results, we deduce our final estimate
543: of the muon anomaly in units of $10^{-10}$:
544: \bea
545: a_\mu^{ SM}&=&11~659~191.6(6.8)~~\big{[}\tau-{\rm
546: TH}\big{]}~,\nnb\\
547: &=&11~659~203.6(12.9)~\big{[}\tau-{\rm
548: PDG}\big{]}~,\nnb\\
549: &=&11~659~169.2(6.4)~~\big{[}e^+e^--{\rm TH}\big{]}~,\nnb\\
550: &=&11~659~181.2(12.7)~\big{[}e^+e^--{\rm PDG}\big{]}~,
551: \eea
552: compared with the recent data \cite{BNL}:
553: \bea
554: a_\mu^{exp}&=&11~659~204.0(8.6)\times 10^{-10}~.
555: \eea
556: Then, we deduce in units of $10^{-10}$:
557: \bea
558: a_\mu^{exp}-a_\mu^{
559: SM}&=&12.4(11.0)~\big{[}\tau-{\rm TH}\big{]}~,\nnb\\
560: &=&0.4(15.5)~\big{[}\tau-{\rm PDG}\big{]}~,\nnb\\
561: &=&34.8(10.7)~\big{[}e^+e^--{\rm TH}\big{]}~,\nnb\\
562: &=&22.8(15.3)~\big{[}e^+e^--{\rm PDG}\big{]}~.
563: \eea
564: One can see that the inclusion of these new effects due to scalar
565: mesons improves
566: the agreement between $a_\mu^{exp}$ and
567: $a_\mu^{SM}$: though a such agreement is quite good from $\tau$-decay
568: (less than
569: 1.1 $\sigma$), there still remains some disagrement (1.5 to 3.3 $\sigma$)
570: between
571: $a_\mu^{SM}$ from $e^+e^-$ and $a_\mu^{exp}$.
572: More refined estimates of $a_\mu^{SM}$ require improved measurements of
573: the masses and widths of the scalar mesons, which are, at present,
574: the major obstacles for
575: reaching a high-precision value of $a_\mu^{SM}$. These new measurements are
576: also necessary for making progresses in our QCD understanding of the
577: nature of scalar
578: mesons, which play a vital r\^ole on our understanding of the
579: symmetry breaking in QCD.
580: In addition to some problems mentioned in
581: \cite{DAVIER} (absolute normalization of the cross-section,
582: radiative corrections,
583: $SU(2)$ breakings,...), the discrepancy between the $\tau$-decay and $e^+e^-$
584: data should stimulate improvements of the data and experimental searches for
585: new and presumably tiny effects not accounted for until now. We plan to
586: come back to this point in a future work.
587: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
588: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}
589: \nin
590: Stimulating exchanges with William Marciano and Simon
591: Eidelman are gratefully acknowledged.
592: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
593: \bibitem{BNL}C.S. Ozben et al., hep-ex/0211044; G.W. Bennett et al.,
594: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 89} (2002) 1001804.
595: \bibitem{DAVIER}M. Davier et al., {Eur. Phys. Lett. J}, {\bf C 27} (2003) 497.
596: \bibitem{KAORU}K. Hagiwara et al., {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 557} (2003) 69.
597: \bibitem{SN}S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 513} (2001) 53;
598: Erratum {\bf 526} (2002) 414; hep-ph/0108065;
599: hep-ph/0203053.
600: \bibitem{YND}J.F. de Troc\'oniz and J.F. Yndur\'ain, {\it Phys. Rev.}
601: {\bf D 65} (2001) 093001.
602: \bibitem{CMD2}The CMD-2 collaboration, R.R. Akhmetshin et al., {\it
603: Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 527} (2002) 161.
604: \bibitem{BEPC}The BES collaboration, J.Z. Bai et al., {\it Phys. Rev.
605: Lett.} {\bf 84} (200) 594; {\bf 88} (2002) 101802.
606: \bibitem{RAF}C. Bouchiat and L. Michel, {\it J. Phys. Radium} {\bf
607: 22} (1961) 121; M. Gourdin and E. de Rafael,
608: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 10} (1969) 667.
609: \bibitem{LAUT}B.E. Lautrup and E. de Rafael, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 174} (1968)
610: 1835.
611: \bibitem{KYOTO}L. Montanet, {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B
612: 86} (2000) 381; U. Gastaldi, {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B
613: 96} (2001) 234; I. Bediaga, {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B
614: 96} (2001) 225; {\it Possible existence of $\sigma$
615: meson and its implications, Kyoto, KEK Proceedings} {\bf 2000-4}, ed.
616: Ishida et al.
617: \bibitem{U1}V.A. Novikov et al., {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 165} (1980)
618: 67; J.Ellis and M.S. Chanowitz,
619: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 40} (1972) 397; {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 7}
620: (1973) 2490; R.J. Crewther, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}
621: {\bf 28} (1972) 1421.
622: \bibitem{SVZ}M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, {\it
623: Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 147} (1979) 385, 448.
624: \bibitem{SNB}S. Narison, {\it QCD as a Theory of Hadrons
625: Cambridge Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol.} {\bf 17} (2002) 1
626: [hep-ph/0205006]; {\it QCD Spectral Sum Rules.
627: World Sci. Lect. Notes Phys.} {\bf 26} (1989) 1.
628: \bibitem{VENEZIA}S. Narison and G. Veneziano, {\it Int. Mod. Phys.}
629: {\bf A 4} (1989) 2751;
630: A. Bramon and S. Narison, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} {\bf A4} (1989) 1113.
631: \bibitem{SNG}S. Narison, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 509} (1998) 312;
632: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A 675} (2000) 54c;
633: {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 96} (2001) 244; hep-ph/0009108;
634: hep-ph/0208081; H.G. Dosch and S. Narison, hep-ph/0208271.
635: \bibitem{OCHS}W. Ochs and P. Minkowski, hep-ph/0209225;
636: hep-ph/0209223; J. Ellis and J. Lanik, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B
637: 150} (1985) 289.
638: \bibitem{WITTEN}E. Witten, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 156} (1979) 269;
639: G. Veneziano, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 159} (1979) 213;
640: G.M. Shore, S. Narison and G. Veneziano, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B
641: 546} (1999) 235; {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 433} (1995) 209.
642: \bibitem{SNTHESIS}S. Narison, {\it Th\`ese de Doctorat 3\`eme cycle},
643: Marseille (1976).
644: \bibitem{PDG}PDG02, K. Hagiwara et al., {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 66}
645: (2002) 010001 and references quoted therein.
646: \bibitem{MENES}G. Mennessier, {Z. Phys.} {\bf C 16} (1983) 241 and
647: private communications.
648: % M.N.~Achasov et al., {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 492} (2000) 8.
649: \bibitem{CALMET}J. Calmet et al., {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 49} (1977) 21.
650: %\bibitem{MENES2}{I thank Gerard Mennessier for a discussion on this point.}
651: \bibitem{RENARD} Private communications from Jacques Layssac and
652: Fernand Michel Renard.
653: \bibitem{SUZY}L3 collaboration, M. Acciarri et al., {\it Phys.
654: Lett.}{ \bf B 414} (1997) 373. I thank Jean Lo\"\i c Kneur for
655: bringing this paper to my attention.
656: \bibitem{MARCIANO}W.J. Marciano and T. Kinoshita, {\it World Sci.
657: Advanced Series on Directions in High Energy Physics},
658: {\bf Vol 7} (1990); A. Czarnecki and W.J. Marciano, {\it Nucl. Phys.
659: (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B 76} (1999) 245.
660: \bibitem{LL}M. Knecht and A. Niffeler, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 65}
661: (2002) 073034; M. Knecht et al., {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 88}
662: (2002)
663: 071802; M. Hayakawa and T. Kinoshita, hep-ph/0112102; J. Bijnens et
664: al., {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 626} (2002) 410.
665: \end{thebibliography}
666: \end{document}
667:
668: \bibitem{SNH}K.G. Chetyrkin and S. Narison, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B
669: 485} (2000) 145;
670: J.I. Latorre, P. Pascual and S. Narison, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C 34} (1987) 347.
671: \bibitem{OTHERS}J. Govaerts et al., {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 248}
672: (1984) 1; J.I. Latorre et al., {\it Phys. lett.} {\bf
673: B 147} (1984) 169; H.Y. Jin, J.G. Korner and T.G. Steele, {\it Phys.
674: Rev.} {\bf D 67} (2003) 014025.
675: \bibitem{CHUNG}S.U. Chung, {\it Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf B
676: 86} (2000) 341.
677: